5 ms·

That is some fucked up doublespeak right there. If corporations weren't so powerful, they wouldn't be able to manipulate the government into passing laws that

That is some fucked up doublespeak right there. If corporations weren't so powerful, they wouldn't be able to manipulate the government into passing laws that restrict choice among citizens.

sanderjd 12y ago
You are talking around each other because there isn't one "the government", but rather a bunch of different levels constantly pushing and pulling against one another. It's very reasonable to be a small government ideologue while simultaneously wanting a more powerful city government. Many people who want "small government" simply want a less powerful federal government. A few states are playing with this balance (Colorado certainly among them) at all levels. Should the federal government control the state's drug policy? Should the state control the county's or municipality's infrastructure or natural resources? What about schools, who should control those? These sorts of questions are where you see major differences between lots of different people who would all identify themselves as "conservatives" and agreement with many people would would identify themselves as "liberals". It isn't a simple system!
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  I could not agree more with the liberty-above-all folks - in terms of sentiment. I could not disagree more with them that the greatest threat to individual liberty is the "government" - that was true back in the day of Paul Revere maybe. But times have changed. Nowadays the greatest threat, and a much more intelligent and subtle threat, too, is from Big Money. There's a war out there for people's minds, and we-the-people are currently losing. Chaining up the bodies is so medieval and inefficient, so why bother, when you can chain up the minds and then the slaves will passionately defend their own chains. It's easy, too, just set up some "think tanks", or promote some newfangled ideologies that seem to promise "liberty" while in fact weaken the very defenses that support it. Problem solved. I lived the first 2 decades of my life under communist dictatorship, so I think I know from first hand experience what freedom, or lack thereof, truly mean.
  - refurb 12y ago
    I could not disagree more with them that the greatest threat to individual liberty is the "government" - that was true back in the day of Paul Revere maybe. But times have changed. You've got to be kidding. Most of the violations of human rights that occur in the world come from governments. What other entity is powerful enough to take everything you have and thrown you in prison?
    - namlem 12y ago
      There's no such thing as a world without governments. A large scale stateless society is impossible. If you weaken the power of democratic governments, non-democratic entities will take their place as the de facto government.
      - refurb 12y ago
        That didn't answer the question. If the world can't exist without governments, that doesn't imply that governments won't take away your freedoms.
  - TelmoMenezes 12y ago
    > I lived the first 2 decades of my life under communist dictatorship, so I think I know from first hand experience what freedom, or lack thereof, truly mean. So you experienced a regime where government became too powerful and oppressive in the name of protecting the interests of the people, and you conclude that the biggest threat to freedom is not enough government to protect the interests of the people?
baddox 12y ago
Your statement sounds like the doublespeak to me. At the end of the day, it's government that physically enforces things with relative impunity. The "power" of corporations in this context is just the power of government being used for corporate interests; it doesn't work the other way around.
- DrJosiah 12y ago
  Nominally, governments act at the behest of the good of the people, powerful or not. Regulation is part of its purpose. If they are not operating for the good of the people, then who are they operating for? This is a clear case where a government founded for the good of the people has been side-tracked to operate at the good of a corporation, at the expense of the people. So I will stick with my earlier statement: governments have power due to the will of the people, and blaming the existence of governmental power for the fact that corporations bought the legislation is doublespeak. The problem is not the existence of government (unless you are anarchist), nor is the fact that the government has the power to regulate. The problem is that a corporation bought legislation to restrict consumer choice, and that neither the politicians nor the corporations are being held accountable for the implicit (or even explicit) bribery that went on to make it happen.

That is some fucked up doublespeak right there. If corporations weren't so powerful, they wouldn't be able to manipulate the government into passing laws that restrict choice among citizens.

sanderjd 12y ago

You are talking around each other because there isn't one "the government", but rather a bunch of different levels constantly pushing and pulling against one another. It's very reasonable to be a small government ideologue while simultaneously wanting a more powerful city government. Many people who want "small government" simply want a less powerful federal government. A few states are playing with this balance (Colorado certainly among them) at all levels. Should the federal government control the state's drug policy? Should the state control the county's or municipality's infrastructure or natural resources? What about schools, who should control those? These sorts of questions are where you see major differences between lots of different people who would all identify themselves as "conservatives" and agreement with many people would would identify themselves as "liberals". It isn't a simple system!

Florin_Andrei 12y ago
I could not agree more with the liberty-above-all folks - in terms of sentiment. I could not disagree more with them that the greatest threat to individual liberty is the "government" - that was true back in the day of Paul Revere maybe. But times have changed. Nowadays the greatest threat, and a much more intelligent and subtle threat, too, is from Big Money. There's a war out there for people's minds, and we-the-people are currently losing. Chaining up the bodies is so medieval and inefficient, so why bother, when you can chain up the minds and then the slaves will passionately defend their own chains. It's easy, too, just set up some "think tanks", or promote some newfangled ideologies that seem to promise "liberty" while in fact weaken the very defenses that support it. Problem solved. I lived the first 2 decades of my life under communist dictatorship, so I think I know from first hand experience what freedom, or lack thereof, truly mean.
- refurb 12y ago
  I could not disagree more with them that the greatest threat to individual liberty is the "government" - that was true back in the day of Paul Revere maybe. But times have changed. You've got to be kidding. Most of the violations of human rights that occur in the world come from governments. What other entity is powerful enough to take everything you have and thrown you in prison?
  - namlem 12y ago
    There's no such thing as a world without governments. A large scale stateless society is impossible. If you weaken the power of democratic governments, non-democratic entities will take their place as the de facto government.
    - refurb 12y ago
      That didn't answer the question. If the world can't exist without governments, that doesn't imply that governments won't take away your freedoms.
- TelmoMenezes 12y ago
  > I lived the first 2 decades of my life under communist dictatorship, so I think I know from first hand experience what freedom, or lack thereof, truly mean. So you experienced a regime where government became too powerful and oppressive in the name of protecting the interests of the people, and you conclude that the biggest threat to freedom is not enough government to protect the interests of the people?

baddox 12y ago

Your statement sounds like the doublespeak to me. At the end of the day, it's government that physically enforces things with relative impunity. The "power" of corporations in this context is just the power of government being used for corporate interests; it doesn't work the other way around.

DrJosiah 12y ago
Nominally, governments act at the behest of the good of the people, powerful or not. Regulation is part of its purpose. If they are not operating for the good of the people, then who are they operating for? This is a clear case where a government founded for the good of the people has been side-tracked to operate at the good of a corporation, at the expense of the people. So I will stick with my earlier statement: governments have power due to the will of the people, and blaming the existence of governmental power for the fact that corporations bought the legislation is doublespeak. The problem is not the existence of government (unless you are anarchist), nor is the fact that the government has the power to regulate. The problem is that a corporation bought legislation to restrict consumer choice, and that neither the politicians nor the corporations are being held accountable for the implicit (or even explicit) bribery that went on to make it happen.